DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 5/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would see motivation for combination between Sasaki and Ma for the purpose of improving display luminance and uniformity (Ma para. 0122).
In response to applicant's argument that one of ordinary skill would not extract this “planar direct-type two-dimensional backlight grid based on eliminating liquid crystal response delay” and re-insert it into a complex off-axis reflective multi-mirror projection optical system which includes “a first curved mirror, a second curved mirror, and at least one of the first curved mirror and the second curved mirror is a concave mirror for magnifying and projecting at a distance (pulling away)”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et. al US 20190212556 (hereinafter “Sasaki”) of record in view of Ma et. al US 20230306920 (hereinafter “Ma”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki teaches an off-axis dual mirror focusing backlight display device comprising:
a diffuser (Sasaki fig. 10-11 – 120, see also para. 0011 and 0068), and configured to increase uniformity of the backlight source (Sasaki para. 0016);
a first curved mirror (Sasaki fig. 10-11 - 132) for receiving and reflecting the backlight source (Sasaki fig. 10-11 – light path);
a second curved mirror (Sasaki fig. 10-11 - 133) for receiving and reflecting the backlight source reflected by the first curved mirror (Sasaki fig. 10-11 – light path);
a display module (Sasaki fig. 10-11 - 140) for receiving the backlight source reflected by the second curved mirror (Sasaki fig. 10-11 – light path); and
at least one of the first curved mirror (132) and the second curved mirror (133) is a concave mirror (Sasaki fig. 10-11 - 133), which is used for magnifying and pulling away the backlight source.
Sasaki does not specifically teach a light emitting array as a conical light cup with a diffuser set on an outgoing light side of the array.
In the same field of endeavor, Ma teaches a light emitting array (Ma fig. 5 - 101) including a plurality of light sources (Ma fig. 5 – 101 in an array), and providing a backlight source;
a conical light cup array including a plurality of conical light cups (Ma fig. 5-8 – 40 including 402, 403, 4031), and set on an incoming light side of the conical light cup array (Ma fig. 11), wherein each of the light sources (101) corresponds to a corresponding one of the conical light cups (Ma fig. 5), and the conical light cup array (40, 402, 403, 4031) is configured to magnify the backlight source to reduce diffusion angle of the backlight source;
a diffuser (Ma fig. 30 - 03) set on an outgoing light side of the conical light cup array (Ma fig. 30 – 03 is disposed opposite to 101) for the purpose of improving display luminance and uniformity (Ma para. 0122). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light emitting array as a conical light cup with a diffuser set on an outgoing light side of the array as taught by Ma in the off-axis dual mirror focusing backlight display device of Sasaki in order to improve display luminance and uniformity (Ma para. 0122).
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki and Ma teach the off-axis dual mirror focusing backlight display device as claimed in claim 1, and they further teach wherein the conical light cups (40) are hollow light cups coated with a high reflectivity coating (Ma para. 0169 – high reflective coating on the inside of the cups) or transparent solid light cups.
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki and Ma teach the off-axis dual mirror focusing backlight display device as claimed in claim 1, and Sasaki further teaches wherein one of the first and second curved mirrors (132 and 133 respectively) is a concave mirror (Sasaki fig. 10-11 – 133 is concave), and the other is a concave or convex mirror (Sasaki fig. 10-11 – 132 also concave).
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki and Ma teach the off-axis dual mirror focusing backlight display device as claimed in claim 1, and Ma further teaches wherein the conical light cups of the conical light cup array (40) have different inclinations (Ma fig. 16).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki and Ma teach the off-axis dual mirror focusing backlight display device as claimed in claim 1, and Ma further teaches wherein the diffuser (03) is a curved sheet member or a planar sheet member (Ma fig. 30 – 03 is a diffuser plate, see also para. 0226).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki and Ma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasei et. al US 20060291065 (hereinafter “Hasei”) of record.
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki and Ma teach the off-axis dual mirror focusing backlight display device as claimed in claim 1 further comprising a convex lens array (Sasaki fig. 17-19 – W2), the diffuser (03) is a planar sheet member (Ma para. 0226 – a plate), the convex lens array (W2) includes a plurality of convex lenses (Ma fig. 18-19, see also para. 0181).
Sasaki and Ma do not specifically place the convex lens array W2 onto the diffuser plate 03, however Ma does disclose that the disclosed embodiments may be modified or improved without departing from the scope of the invention (Ma para. 0260).
In the same field of endeavor, Hasei teaches a convex lens array (Hasei fig. 2 – 9), the diffuser (Hasei fig. 2 - 7) is a planar sheet member (Hasei fig. 2), the convex lens array (9) includes a plurality of convex lenses (Hasei fig. 2), the convex lens array (9) is arranged on an outgoing light side of the diffuser (Hasei fig. 2 – 9 is on the outgoing light side of 7), so that the diffuser (7) is located between the convex lens array (9) and the conical light cup array (Hasei fig. 2 – 7 is between 9 and light cups 5 and 6) for the purpose of controlling the intensity distribution of light transmitted through the light diffusing plate (Hasei para. 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a convex lens array on the outgoing light side of the diffuser as taught by Hasei in the off-axis dual mirror focusing backlight display device of Sasaki and Ma in order to control the intensity distribution of light transmitted through the light diffusing plate (Hasei para. 0066.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights